I have mentioned before that I am pro globalization. I support the World Service Authority in their attempts to unify the world under one government. I also support the idea of a global currency and the International Fixed Calendar (IFC). A necessary piece to tie all of this together is an nation independent language that can serve as the common language medium for international interactions, troche which is what Esperanto was created for.

Esperanto has many advantages over any other language. No nation can claim Esperanto as theirs. Some countries hesitate to pick any other language for pride and political fear. None of these problems are associated with Esperanto. It was created for ease of learning and to sidestep the aforementioned problems.

If you have read this far – Thank you. I have seen that Esperanto has a word similar to ‘hu‘ (noted from my previous post) – Ĝi. I find it interesting….

Am I psycho? You might think so, hospital by now. Perhaps I will be lucky enough to have my children to speak English, find Russian, and Esperanto.

Take away the question mark. Esperanto works! I’ve used it in speech and writing in a dozen countries over recent years.

Indeed, the language has some remarkable practical benefits. Personally, I’ve made friends around the world through Esperanto that I would never have been able to communicate with otherwise. And then there’s the Pasporta Servo , which provides free lodging and local information to Esperanto-speaking travellers in over 90 countries. In the past tear I have had guided tours of Berlin and Milan in the planned language. I have discussed philosophy with a Slovene poet, humour on television with a Bulgarian TV producer. I’ve discussed what life was like in East Berlin before the wall came down, how to cook perfect spaghetti, the advantages and disadvantages of monarchy, and so on. I recommend it, not just as an ideal but as a very practical way to overcome language barriers.

Why IFC? I am glad that you asked. I have done quite a bit of research on calendar reform and the best one is the IFC, at least as far as I am concerned, by a large margin.

My primary concern is considerably simplifying peoples everyday lives. The World Calendar suffers from the same problems that I wish to alleviate unequal months. The two calendars are very, very similar.

Simply, the primary advantage is that every month is exactly the same. There is no variation. If you are asked to schedule something you will know what day of the week it is without thinking about it.

Having every month uniform makes trend analysis, budgeting, bill paying, and business tracking so much easier.

The World Calendar has unequal months so trying to track a trend or budgeting or bill paying month to month is not going to be accurate or easy without some fancy math, albeit, the math will be simpler than what is required now as the variance is much more regulated and consistent.

The World Calendar was one advantage that the IFC does not and that is equal quarters.

They both suffer from the intercalary day problem which was probably the only reason that the UN did not accept this as the new calender for the world. My only response to that is that “The Sabbath was made for Man, and not the Man for Sabbath”.